French Burka Ban

[Madhuri]

From what I have been able to understand from some fellow Muslim members on this forum, the burka is not sanctioned by the Quran at all, but is a cultural practice seen in some specific Muslim countries.
I remember .lava, one of our Islamic moderators, commenting that the burka is wrong or goes too far because it takes away your identity.

 

[Cordoba]

Niqab Ban Harmful: French

A French law banning the wearing of face-veil in public places is sparking worries for harming social cohesion and limiting the Muslim presence in the western European country.

"This law of exception in France, a nation built on laws, is harmful," Noura Jaballah, coordinator of the France chapter of the European Forum for Muslim Women, told the USA Today on Tuesday, April 12.

Niqab Ban Harmful: French - Europe - News - OnIslam.net

 

[Bismillah]

This affects niqabs as well and is a despicable act of targeting an indefensible minority to bolster Sarkozy's votes.

And, may I remind those foolish enough to forget, it is not up to others to decide whether a women is oppressed or not.

 

[kai]

I think its stupid and petty and not going to last. I suspect this will turn into an embarrassment and be overturned sooner or later. It wouldn't get the time of day here.

 

[kai]

From what I have been able to understand from some fellow Muslim members on this forum, the burka is not sanctioned by the Quran at all, but is a cultural practice seen in some specific Muslim countries.
I remember .lava, one of our Islamic moderators, commenting that the burka is wrong or goes too far because it takes away your identity.

I used to debate whether it was Islamic or not, then i wondered does it really matter ? Its just as wrong to make a person wear it as forbid a person not to wear it . in my opinion.

 

[Bismillah]

Doesn't matter if burqa is Islamic or not, the Niqab most certainly is and it also falls under the clause that bans it. However, I agree that it should not matter much if indeed it is or not.

 

[blackout]

I can understand banning certain attire in certain limited situations. As Madhuri pointed out, it's fair to make people show most of their face if they enter a bank or some shops.

I also remember a public debate regarding a woman who didn't want to show her face from under her burka for a driver's license photo, which is ridiculous. The whole point is that it's a photo ID, so it needs to identify the face. And officials who, say, pull someone over should be able to request the person to temporarily remove any covering for the purposes of safe identification.

Other than for specific safety reasons, I don't support governing the attire of people.

A person should not be allowed to drive either,
with their scope of vision impaired.

I cannot even drive with my sweatshirt hood up,
as it restricts my field of vision on the sides.

You know those burqua head bags impair scope/field of vision notably.
I don't want someone running over my kid,
just because they feel the need to drive with a bag over their head.
sorry.

 

[blackout]

As well, when that person hits your kid,
(because they can't see properly while driving)
you cannot even POSITIVELY IDENTIFY WHO THE HELL THEY ARE.
Unless you FORCE THEM to show their face.
Sure you have a plate number,
but still no positive driver identification.
The driver could point to another burqua wearing sibling or friend....


Or if a generically covered person steals something from your store,
and goes out onto a busy sidewalk
of other generically covered persons.

How on EARTH are you ever going to identify the thief?

*can't believe I'm doing this conversation yet again...*
why why why....

 

[lunakilo]

Other than for specific safety reasons, I don't support governing the attire of people.

Does that also mean that people should be allowed to walk around naked in public if they want?

 

[blackout]

Originally Posted by Penumbra
Other than for specific safety reasons, I don't support governing the attire of people.

Does that also mean that people should be allowed to walk around naked in public if they want?

Probably some bottom covering would be good for public health/safety reasons.
(I don't want my bare bum sitting where your bare bum was. )
And socks... shoes....

But women certainly, should not have to wear tops anywhere men don't have to wear them.

At least by the specific safety issues standard.
(whatever other opinions you might have about it)

 

[lunakilo]

Probably some bottom covering would be good for public health/safety reasons.
(I don't want my bare bum sitting where your bare bum was. )

Then don't. Wear clothes if you want, but why should you get to tell me that I can't walk around naked?

 

[TashaN]

French burka ban: police arrest two veiled women - Telegraph

I think this is too extreme. I would not support a government's right to tell people they can't wear something that they voluntarily dress in.

Thoughts?

Veiled woman: I'm a French citizen and i have the right to wear whatever i want whether it was a burka, mini skirt, bikini, etc.

The government: you are not allowed to do so because burka is a symbol of male oppression.

Veiled woman: But there is no male forcing me to wear it.

The government: we know there is a male somewhere! This is a secular country, we will not allow it.

Veiled woman:

 

[TashaN]

Is the burka the one that covers the face or just the hair?
I can see why a law could be enforced to ban covering one's face for safety precautions. But if they are banning the veil that covers the hair then that is just ludicrous.

They have banned covering the face. I would have understood if the reason behind the ban was security, but their main issue was to "protect secular values".

 

[blackout]

Then don't. Wear clothes if you want, but why should you get to tell me that I can't walk around naked?

Well we were talking about safety guidlines I thought.
(as per penumbra)

I didn't want to be so descript,
but feces and potential genital disease
getting spread all over shared seats and all
is definately a public safety issue. no?

EDIT: Even fully DRESSED people touch chairs and such with their hands.
Children are always putting their mouths on things,
and/or their hands in their mouths
and all over their faces.
It would be a public safety issue for EVERYONE.

A public beach for nude sunbathers fine.
Hopefully people are hygenic,
don't share towels and all,
but they know what they are walking into there
and choose that.

Also, walking around naked on your own yard,
should be fine, by public safety standards.

 

[Nooj]

Does that also mean that people should be allowed to walk around naked in public if they want?

Personally, I think yes.

 

[lunakilo]

They have banned covering the face. I would have understood if the reason behind the ban was security, but their main issue was to "protect secular values".

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the government should tell people what they can or cannot wear (other that when we are talking about safety or identification as has already been mantioned), and I do think the burka ban is a sign of european islamophobia.

But I would like to try and explain the "protection of secular values" to you.
We have had the same discussion in my country (Denmark), but no burka ban has been imposed.

Both Denmark and France are what I would describe as secular countries. Religion does not play a big part in peoples lives.
Religion is usually considered a private thing, and wearing very visable religious symbols is frowned upon.
You just don't push your religion in other peoples faces. Such is the local culture (in Denmark at least).

When people choose to wear clothes like a burka or even just a head dress, they very clearly signal their religion to the people around them.
This is seen by many people of disrespect to local customs/value, that is that muslims don't respect the country they live in.
And this again adds to the islamophobia.

People then feel that they have to do something and suddenly you have a burka ban designed to "protect secular values".

 

[Nooj]

Thank you for that post. My personal opinion is that if secular values need protecting by infringing on the freedom of expression of people, then secular values can go to hell.

 

[lunakilo]

Well we were talking about safety guidlines I thought.
(as per penumbra)

I didn't want to be so descript,
but feces and potential genital disease
getting spread all over shared seats and all
is definately a public safety issue. no?

EDIT: Even fully DRESSED people touch chairs and such with their hands.
Children are always putting their mouths on things,
and/or their hands in their mouths
and all over their faces.
It would be a public safety issue for EVERYONE.

A public beach for nude sunbathers fine.
Hopefully people are hygenic,
don't share towels and all,
but they know what they are walking into there
and choose that.

Also, walking around naked on your own yard,
should be fine, by public safety standards.

Allright, underpants it is then

But my point is, in most places walking around in you underpants is not allowed.
Isn't that essentially the same thing as a burka ban?
Both impose rules on how people can dress.

 

[lunakilo]

Thank you for that post. My personal opinion is that if secular values need protecting by infringing on the freedom of expression of people, then secular values can go to hell.

I tend to agree with you on that I think.

 

[Madhuri]

When people choose to wear clothes like a burka or even just a head dress, they very clearly signal their religion to the people around them.
This is seen by many people of disrespect to local customs/value, that is that muslims don't respect the country they live in.
And this again adds to the islamophobia.

People then feel that they have to do something and suddenly you have a burka ban designed to "protect secular values".

But who cares? Expressing your identity through the clothing you wear is not an aim to convert others or push your beliefs in their faces. It's just you being you. There's no freedom in that at all.

My idea of secularism is different and I suppose my culture views secularism differently to what you have expressed. Secularism is when no one religion is favoured, so government tries not to show particular favour or discrimination to any religious group. It stays out of religion.

But religious groups are free to dress how they like, free to celebrate publicly, free to have a voice like any other organisation or institution.

Banning religious dress is not secularism in practice. It's discrimination.

And if the people feel disrespected by others wearing different clothing, I see that as being simply narrow minded and ethnocentric.